[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

I've explained that I prefer discussing these matters publicly.  When I 
said I preferred doing so on the Election-Methods site, I meant the site 
on which this post appears; that is, the site maintained under the 
auspices of Electorama.com.  To the best of my limited knowledge, this 
site is not referred as EMIG (howver appropriate that term might be). 
What you call EMIG is a different site.  Please don't confuse the two.

The following is my response to your most recent e-mail:

re: "It would appear that Mr. Gohlke is attempting to *design* an 
effective political structure. However, it's easy -- or at least it 
seems easy -- to design improved political structures; but the trick is 
how to 'create' them."

Common sense dictates that design precede implementation and we're still 
in the design phase.  You may find design easy, I don't.


re: "And the proposal made here by him completely misses the 'creation' 
part.  Rather, it was a description of an implemented system, as if the 
people hired a consultant to design a system, then they implemented it, 
full-blown."

I lack the arrogance to propose implementation of a concept without 
subjecting it to the careful scrutiny of those who will be affected by 
it ... and of those more expert in such matters than myself.


re: "And a very complicated system it is ..."

Complication may, in this instance, be in the eye of the beholder.


re: "... involving massive organization on a scale never before seen ..."

That's a gratuitous overstatement.  Active Democracy is less complicated 
than the Social Security System, the Selective Service System, the 
system of any credit card issuer, or the political system imposed on us 
by the major political parties.


re: "... with a rigid structure ... "

By definition, a method is "A system for doing things or handling 
ideas." and a system is "A set of facts, rules, etc. arranged in an 
orderly form so as to show an orderly plan."  The attribution of 
rigidity to Active Democracy, without explaining what part of the method 
is untoward, is merely denigration.  It is more suggestive of a 
preference for anarchy than a search for a more democratic government.


re: "... that disempowers people who don't follow the rules."

The issue is not following rules, but selecting leaders.  Those unable 
to make a selection do not contribute to the process or to the welfare 
of the community.


re: "However, it does have a few, shall we say, technical flaws.  For 
example, how are people assigned to blocks of three?  If you can control 
that system, you can control the outcome, or at least exert a major 
influence on it."

Up to this point, I have avoided outlining the specific details of 
implementation because I believe that phase will occur later in the 
development process.  However, since you've raised the point, I will 
outline my personal vision of the process for those who'd care to see it:

It is my opinion that the entire electorate will be maintained in a 
computer database and software will create random groupings of three 
electors each.  As each level completes, the database will be updated to 
show the selections made, and that information will be massaged to 
generate the groupings for the next level.

Specifications for the software might include:

1) Divide the number of registered voters into groups of three people 
such that each elector is chosen randomly from all voters.

2) After the groups are set, re-assign group members to achieve the 
greatest geographic proximity possible for members of all groups, except 
that, at the lowest level, no person may be grouped with a person they 
were grouped with in any of the previous 5 elections.

3) Elector(s) remaining after the maximum number of groups have been 
created are called Overflow.  Overflow electors are used to fill 
vacancies in groups caused by the death or incapacity of a member of a 
defined group.

4) If a group becomes incomplete because of the death or incapacity of a 
member and there is no Overflow available to complete the group, the 
remaining members become Overflow and are assigned to groups as 
described in (3).

5) Overflow who are not assigned to groups (possibly one or two 
electors) rise to the next level and must be the first person(s) 
assigned to a group at the next level.

6) Such additional rules as are deemed appropriate.

The software development and maintenance processes must be carefully 
supervised to guarantee their integrity.  In addition, the selections 
made at each level must be reported in the press.  This allows a public 
review of the results and allows the public to supply beneficial or 
detrimental information about advancing candidates for consideration by 
their groups.


re: "However, Mr. Gohlke, here you are corresponding with someone who 
thought up something similar, in some respects, to your idea, twenty 
years ago."

If the matter of primacy with regard to this concept is important to 
you, as appears to be the case since you've mentioned having "thought up 
something similar" multiple times, please be assured it is not a major 
concern of mine.  My purpose is to achieve a careful analysis of the 
concept by thoughtful people with diverse viewpoints.  In this instance, 
primacy is far less significant than the quality of the method my peers 
devise to select the people who will represent them in their government.


re: "Small groups, through discussion, can come to consensus, it's 
certainly possible, but that is with groups which already share certain 
goals and values."

What is the merit in that assertion?  While our goals and values affect 
all of us, the extent and manner in which they do so varies.  The triads 
meet to select the individual best able to represent the people in their 
government.  When they ponder the text of the ordinances and budget 
appropriate to the group, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that 
consideration of the members' positions on those matters will dominate 
the decision process.  That the members' positions will be affected by 
their goals and values is a given, for it is a part of each of us.


re: "Bringing together random voters and trying to obtain this agreement 
within a short time span strikes me has highly unlikely to succeed, more 
than occasionally."

Isn't that jumping to a conclusion?  Would not a discussion of time span 
be appropriate, before deciding the efficacy of the process?


re: "Even if it succeeds more often than not, this would be a lot of 
unrepresented people. Unrepresented, quite possibly, through no fault of 
their own."

Such an allegation would be more impressive if it were backed up with 
careful analysis showing such a result.


The balance of your message does not address Active Democracy.

Fred